We need to engage Iran rather than paint it into a dangerous corner

Ferry de Kerckhove is a Fellow of the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute, Senior Fellow, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ottawa, Adjunct Professor, Department of Political Science, Cape Breton University, and the former High Commissioner of Canada to Pakistan and Ambassador to Indonesia and Egypt.

It is remarkable that of Canada’s foreign relations, Iran’s has been probably the most inimical of all. The recent closure of the already down-sized Canadian Embassy in Tehran caps it all – and for the long haul. While the timing remains an enigma, there is no shortage of reasons, and our feelings have been expressed clearly over time. Canada’s list of grievances is long: the assassination in 2003 of Canadian Iranian photographer Zahra Kazemi by Iranian prison officials, Iran’s appalling human rights abuses, its antinomic positions on Israel and the Middle East Peace (MEPP), and Iran’s failing on the nuclear front. For a number of years now, Canada has imposed a “controlled engagement policy” with Iran, limiting talks to these issues. Yet, despite all these legitimate concerns, given the critical interests at play in the region, is this policy contributing to a potential evolution of the regime’s course of action?

Iran matters for a host of reasons, few positively, other than its role as a major energy producer. As a regional power, it plays a nefarious role in the MEPP. Yet, there will be no stability in the Middle East North Africa region, even if an elusive and durable Israeli-Palestinian peace was achieved, without an effective handling of Iran.

Iran’s nuclear program is shrouded with uncertainties; yet, Western statements on it are made with seeming authority. Indeed, what is the true purpose of Iran’s nuclear activities given its failure to meet its disclosure obligations towards the International Atomic Energy Agency? But as of now, Iran has not started producing nuclear weapons and were it to do so, it would take years for Iran to develop a capable arsenal.

The world is – understandably – ill at ease with a theocratic regime with which there is no common language. We read intentions and make them certitudes. Our Prime Minister said: “their statements imply to me no hesitation about using nuclear weapons if they see them achieving their religious or political purposes.”

We see the Iranian regime through our Western prism and hope for an uprising. We must try to better understand – not accept – the rationalities underlying Iran’s behaviour rather than creating our own rationalities. The situation today is dangerous. Iran’s paranoiac leaders, already troubled by changes in the region, the loss of allies, the growing assertiveness of Saudi Arabia, the competition from Turkey as a major regional player, might be using the threat of nuclear weapons acquisition to display their regional power. We need to engage the country rather than paint it into a dangerous corner. And closing our Embassy is certainly not a step in the right direction.

While sanctions may sometimes spur countries into action, only engagement, under strict conditions, including the recognition of a mutual interest in changed relationships, can lead to long term stability. Negotiations must be conducted on an equal footing, irrespective of our profound dislike for the regime at the helm of the country.

For Canada, there are several prescriptions:

Use its privileged relationship with Israel to discourage it from embarking on bombing the nuclear facilities of Iran.

Encourage Israel to engage fully on the MEPP so as to not only advance the cause of peace in the region but also to remove that conflict from the Iranian propaganda toolkit.

Make good use of our multicultural model of tolerance and pluralism to encourage the displaying of more openness and understanding towards Islam – recent tragic, Al Qaeda inspired, events in the region make it imperative, however difficult.

Ensure that assistance to regimes emerging from the Arab Spring remains on the international economic agenda and encourage fellow G-20 countries to enter into a dialogue with moderate Islamic regimes thus thwarting Iran’s effort to bring them into a more extremist bent.

Make clear that regime change in Iran is not our ultimate objective – however much we would applaud one.

Expose the fallacy of trying to erect an Arab common front against Persia or, worse, to enflame Shia-Sunni tensions.

Of course, the closing of our mission in Iran has eviscerated any potential rethinking of our Controlled Engagement Policy, since we no longer have any engagement. Yet, we should have envisaged framing an enlarged dialogue, with very clear red lines, which would have also expressed some consideration for legitimate Iranian regional security concerns, such as Afghanistan, drugs and the future of Iraq. Slamming the door shut is not a policy.

Finally, heretically thinking the unthinkable, without prejudging: what would a nuclear Iran actually mean for the world. Might it be less worrisome than Pakistan’s?

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.